|
Category:African American basketball players (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (restore | cache)) CfD
majority of users seem to want this category page as a subcategory page for Category:African American sportspeople. The later cat page is incredibly long and subcategory page improves navigating. Moreover, there is Category:African American baseball players - it seems unfair to have one and not the other. The argument that African American baseball players of the first half of the 20th century have had historic significance but African American basketball players (like Bill Russell, Wilt Chamberlain, and Michael Jordan have not, apparently) seems rather too POV. There are others too in the same boat, one for each of the major sports Category:African American boxers, Category:African American professional wrestlers, Category:African American track and field athletes, Category:African American soccer players, Category:African American tennis players, Category:African American American football players, Category:African American Canadian football players (this last one was not even a recreation) all have been speedily deleted (almost as if to avoid discussion) despite their being able to be well-populated. I can see however with sports where there has been only one or two African American sportspeople, not wanting a subcat page (I don t know, like for dart players or nascar drivers or something). Mayumashu (talk) 20:50, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Link to the discussion please! Johnbod (talk) 22:24, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Original discussion: Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2007_October_27#Category:African_Americans_by_sport
- Overturn The CfD used as precedent, Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2007_October_27#Category:African_Americans_by_sport, used as the original precedent to justify the speedy deletion, has to be one of the most egregious abuses of consensus I have seen. Precedent is a useful guide in considering other cases, in any legal system or in Wikipedia. The problem is that at CfD, conclusions of earlier CfDs are abused to mean that they had established binding precedents on any all future discussions vaguely similar to a prior case. The problem is that nothing in Wikipedia establishes the result of any prior XfD as binding. Editors are entitled to consider any item up for deletion and decide that a "precedent" offered is inapplicable or just plain wrong. Not only can consensus change, in this case it could not have more clearly changed. User:Kbdank71 abused discretion to disregard the clearest possible consensus in this CfD by insisting that a previous CfD set a binding precedent. Participants had the opportunity to consider the nominator's demands for the disruptive deletion and were near-unanimous in their rejection of the nomination. The Cfd Kbdank71 cited, Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2007_August_3#Category:African_American_baseball_players was a rather narrow decision that almost certainly should have been a "no consensus", for which clear and convincing policy arguments were made for retention, while IHATEIT was offered for deletion. In their zeal to impose arbitrary precedents, we have ended up with a nearly unusable Category:African American sportspeople that includes well over 2,000 articles, but no effective organization within that category. This is symptomatic of the Bizarro world at CfD, where a small handful of editors have sought to disrupt the category system by picking off a category and then using that precedent as a battering ram to justify deletion of any and all similar categories. As with Category:African American sportspeople, much greater flexibility and common sense is needed to allow articles to be organized in a manner in which those coming to Wikipedia can navigate and find similar articles. As Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2007_October_27#Category:African_Americans_by_sport, the CfD used as "precedent" was improperly decided in clear ignorance of consensus, as there is no policy that turns prior decisions into binding precedents, and as the current refusal to allow recreation only perpetuates the disruption to the category system based on an improperly decided "precedent", the underlying Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2007_October_27#Category:African_Americans_by_sport should be overturned and all associated categories should be recreated. Alansohn (talk) 21:22, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Overturn per previous DRV on related category from the same CfD. This appears to be a housekeeping-type of correction that never seemed to be done after the other DRV—it really should have applied to all of the categories that were involved, but the others were never nominated. Let's not make the same mistake again—can this nom apply to all the categories in question? (I assume so, since the nominator listed them in the nom statement.) The overturning of the deletion of all the African American sportspeople categories involved should be without prejudice to fresh CfDs for them individually, since that will help clarify these muddy waters as to whether the current consensus is to keep, delete, or keep by default resulting from no consensus. I encourage other editors (Alanshohn, specifically) to assume good faith about the motives and intentions of other editors and admins and their use of CfD. Surprise!—people make mistakes. Good Ol’factory (talk) 21:34, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- When the same people make these "mistakes" multiple times and then other people turn these "mistakes" into policy, using these "precedents" as justification to delete other categories, there is a genuine and systemic problem. Alansohn (talk) 22:07, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- That's why this forum exists. We can still assume good faith about users. What's the issue? Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:10, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- We're discussing it here. With a number of the admins in question voting to overturn, we may solve this one problem. I look forward to good faith from everyone involved (I will choose not to name names) and this is certainly an excellent harbinger. Alansohn (talk) 22:27, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I meant what's the issue/problem with assuming good faith? I don't think there is one to discuss here. Hopefully you can both prospectively and retrospectively look for good faith in editors. Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:40, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I reciprocate your best wishes about the wonders of assuming good faith, and I will paraphrase your remarks on the subject as I encourage all other editors (again, names are not needed) to assume good faith about my motives and intentions as I join you in extending the same to all other Wikipedia editors,. I think we're all in favor of good faith interactions here, and unless there is some disagreement on this matter, we've probably exhausted the subject. Alansohn (talk) 22:53, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- OK, that's good. I guess your original comments about editors that "abused discretion" and "sought to disrupt the category system" suggested to me that you were not doing so retrospectively. I encourage you to withdraw these comments. Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:57, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- It seems like it's turning into the Otto game, where no comment can be left unresponded. I will agree that there aren't too many people who seek to intentionally disrupt the category system. Even with the best of intentions, the damage that sometimes results from the subconscious bias towards deletion of categories, as we see here, is far greater than the cost of the much-feared bogeyman of overcategorization. I look forward to a greater sense of self-awareness that the purpose of the category system is to provide visitors with an aid to navigation, not as an exercise in finding rules to enforce or dredging up laundry lists of precedents. I think "abused discretion" is abundantly clear, and I stand behind that 100%. Alansohn (talk) 02:26, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Hm, that didn't sound much like a retraction on either issue. OK, at least we know where you stand on AGF (or should I say lack thereof) in this situation. (By the way, you're under no obligation to respond to follow-ups if they annoy you or you see them as a mere "game".) Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:31, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I do sincerely assume that people act in good faith, though I also know that the road to Hell is paved with good intentions. "It takes two to tango", and I believe it's your turn... Alansohn (talk) 04:03, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Overturn' The closes here, and at the previous decisions, were mistaken, and I'm delighted to see the closer of one now wants it overturned. 'Nuff said. The "overcrowding" argument alone is sufficient to justify this. Johnbod (talk) 22:22, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- OVERTURN - Hallelujah. I nearly gave up on Wikipedia after that terribly misbegotten decision. Ignoring concensus in a CFD should only ever be done very rarely, in the most extraordinary of circumstances -- and this was not one of those occasions. So I will be very happy indeed to see this one overturned. And I hope to see this return to common sense extended to what I still feel was the worst-ever decision at CFD, which resulted in the deletion of more than half a dozen categories for journalists. But let's take this one step at a time...
Btw, the original group of 7 sub-cats included Category:African American football players -- but not the two similar categories listed above, which I think take things a step beyond what's needed. Cgingold (talk) 05:34, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Overturn, but proceed cautiously in restoring categories for other sports. I cannot account for why the wrong conclusion was drawn, but it surely was. DGG (talk) 08:46, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Overturn this one only and list at CFD on its own. WP:CCC applies. Stifle (talk) 09:45, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Er, no it does not! It was just ignored before. Johnbod (talk) 10:46, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Clearly, if the CFD is overturned it applies to ALL of the categories that were deleted. That's why I suggested changing the heading for the DRV section, in order to clarify that point. Cgingold (talk) 13:53, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- And here I thought Alansohn was going to stop dragging my name into these things. Oh wait, I see he restricted himself to CFD discussions only. Oh well. Overturn - even though I believe that race and ethnicity categorization is out of control on Wikipedia, it's clear from re-reading the CFD (which I initiated) that there was no consensus to delete. While I have no doubt that the closing admin acted in good faith and see no need to hurl accusations about abuse of discretion or what-not, in this instance his close was in error. Otto4711 (talk) 08:14, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
|
